Iraq and the Middle East: The Baker-Hamilton Report

To be fair, I have yet to read either the Executive Summary or the full report. (I doubt I read the full report.)

If the purpose of commissioning the bi-partisan report was to provide cover for the GW Bush administration to change course in how the war is being conducted (and by extension devising or suggesting a series of possible exit strategies) then the reaction of the President suggests that it's a failure. If its purpose was to deflect criticism until after the 2006 mid-term elections, then it's a partial success. The electoral blow of losing the House and the Senate doesn't seem to have "popped" the bubble around Bush. While his language -- now he seems to be promoting bipartisanship -- has changed slightly, and he has replaced an ideologically driven Rumsfeld with a "realist" Gates, I fear little has really changed in the White House and, therefore, nothing will come out of the report other than using up a lot of paper and ink printing up the requisite number of published copies. Unless there's a real commitment on the part of the Bush Administration to find a real way to get out of Iraq, the situation in Iraq and for the "American enterprise" will continue to erode. It'll be a game of self-deception and continuing senseless bloodshed. That it's coming from an administration whose top leaders consciously avoided action in the last American fiasco, the Vietnam War.

One of the centre planks of the report is to address, and possible even resolve, the other conflicts in the region; the Israel-Palestinian/Arab conflict, the situation in Lebanon, under the assumption that they are driven the Iraqi insurgency (civil war, anarchy -- you choose your favorite term). While it's true the region is highly unstable and conflictive and that each individual conflict has undercurrent of the other regional conflicts, it's naive to think that resolving anyone specific conflict (despite the talk of many of the Arab governments and elites and their supporters) will launch a domino effect as the other conflicts are resolved in its wake. The suggestion is more an act of desperation than inspiration.

The Arab/Palestinian-Israel conflict is the favorite "whipping boy" for the Arabs. It helps the governments and many people divert their attention from the desperate situation they're living in by using Israel as a scapegoat. Denial and avoidance are wonderful psychological defense mechanisms, however, as a way to live and improve their life (style) is dysfunctional. This is not to say that greater outside attention needs to be devoted to encouraging both (all) side to act responsibly and act in good faith to create the necessary conditions for resolving the conflict and have both sides live in peace and cooperation.

The Lebanon's crises has been ongoing since its establishment in the 1920s. The Civil War of the 1980s, and today's political crisis is driven by power plays cloaked in sectarian terms -- Shia, Maronite, Druze; Amal vs Hezbollah; pro-Syrian vs independents ... Resolving this crisis will certainly help stabilize the region. However, beyond reducing Syrian influence (my bias and hope), it'll do nothing to resolving the Iraqi situation and quagmire.

At issue for me are:

• Reversing the anti-West (read US) animosity.
• Restoring the American prestige around the world, but especially in the region and among Moslems and Arabs.
• Getting out of Iraq so attention can be devoted to real issues like the nuclearization of Iran and North Korea, the rise of Asia and China and India in particular, the weak American economy (and the dropping value of the US dollar) partially generated by the ballooning deficit, the domestic issues like healthcare, social welfare, education ...

My faith in government has been greatly weaken recently (more in another post). The report has done nothing to cause me to think the trend is reversing itself. Too bad!

Moment of truth

Tonight we'll see how much American is committed to change or wants to continue to 'follow the yellow brick road'. Should the Democrats take control of the Senate and significant control (since they're already expected to gain control) of the House, then we'll know that 'the dream is over' and we're back in Kansas and addressing the real issues of a real world. If not, then I assume that American is interested in living in the dream world of George W Bush and his advisors. In either event, people will get the government they deserve.

For me, it's a no-brainer. Bush is one of the worst presidents in modern American history; he has neither an effective domestic policy nor foreign policy. The moral standing, nevermind, its actual ability to lead the world has been severely eroded under the current administration. It's bogged down in the quagmire of Iraq (with an unwillingly to confront of the dire reality of anomie and 'civil war' there), their eye has been diverted from the other, and major, international trends -- the rise of China, the nuclearization of North Korea and Iran, growing socialist (and anti-American/West) of South America ... . Their slow and equivible reopens to the scandals of human rights violation UNDER their watch at Gitmo, Abu Graib, Iraq, be it accusation of torture, denial legal rights, has placed America and Americans in real danger.

Domestically, the infastructure, particularly socially, has been greatly undermined. Beyond the perception that government isn't there for everyone -- only to assist the already wealthy become wealthier through tax cuts including a repeal of the estate tax -- people don't trust that the government -- the Executive (Presidency) and Legislature (Congress +) -- are out to advance, nevermind protect, the interests of the middle class. The poor are left even more powerless.

Despite the number of disclosures of the lies told by the Administration, I'm not sure that the general public is willing to hold the Bush White House and Republican Congress accountable. Tonight, we'll see.

Inquiring minds need to know...

In yesterday's Ha'aretz newspaper, Yoel Marcus weighs in with his thoughts on the current demands for an official state inquiry into the recent Lebanon War. Despite the large number of 'mistakes' made in the execution of the war, since Ehud Olmert had only officially been in power for four months when the war began, Marcus believes that he [Olmert] will be able to escape relatively blameless by claiming that he did the best he could with what he was given. I disagree with Marcus.

1. While it may be true that Olmert was stuck with what he had; empty military storehouses, an IDF hierarchy he didn't appoint, a poorly prepared Home Front infastructure -- inadequate bomb shelters, an imprecise early warning system -- he was interim PM for 120 days following Sharon's debilitating stroke, served as Deputy PM, was in the Security Cabinet ... So while he may not have had full authority to do what he may have wanted, he certainly was aware of all that was to be known.

The issue is also not so much what you know, and it seems clear that he was aware of a great deal, but how you "play your cards." Once the Hezbollah launched its attacks on Israel and sent its bombs into northern Israel, he failed to respond either properly or quickly. Instead of immediately arranging food and other basic necessities for people stuck in the shelters, he waited for volunteers to pick up the slack. Instead of immediately assuring the northern residents of real government assistance -- to repair their damaged homes, to assist businesses with their fixed costs (and either postpone or cancel their tax bills), he waited until the end of the war to start the ball rolling with assistance.

Then there's the issue of how he managed the political aspects of directing the IDF in their war plans and operations. He delayed the call up of reserves, thereby delaying the ground operations until the 'cloud' of a ceasefire was present.

He also needs to take responsibility for appointing and overruling Amir Peretz as Defense Minister. His stewardship was also poor.

They, Olmert and Peretz should resign and accept responsibility for their mishandling of the war effort.

2. The purpose of a state commission is not to only evaluate the current administration. It needs to examine the entire recent period, let's say from the last days of the (first) occupation of S Lebanon until today, the last six or seven years. That previous governments will be scrutinized is necessary. From my perspective, the goal of the commission is to clarify what happened, the entire time-line, and to present its recommendations to avoid its repetition.

The currently proposed government commissions -- one to evaluate the military issues, another to look at the political issues and the third to look at the "Home Front" issues -- is inadequate and more prone to whitewash than clarification. Conflict of interest with members of these committees have already been found (another stupid act by the PM), the committees lack the real power to call and demand real answers from the people who appointed them. In addition to compartmentalizing their charge -- they are not to look at the issues outside of their defined focus -- they also lack the trust of the public.

If Olmert is seriously interested in ensuring the lessons are learned, he'll immediately call upon the President of the Supreme Court to convene a state commission of inquiry. I won't hold my breath.

Cedar Chips

The UN brokered ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah (Lebanon) is now a week old. The dust is beginning to settle, so it's time to see where the chips have fallen.

I Regional Actors

Israel: After the initial build up and the implicit expectation that the IDF, the vastly superior fighting force, would quickly dispose of Hezbollah, Israel feels that it lost this battle; Hezbollah is still armed and ready to fight another day and the IDF and the government is under heavy pressure to 'make amends'.

Hezbollah: Hezbollah can claim victory since they were able to stand up to a month-long battle with the "mighty" IDF, were able to sucker Israel to create immense collateral damage which helped to turn the tide against Israel, especially with regard to a number of Arab states like Saudi Arabia as well as the international community. They also seemed to have garnered even more support within Lebanon, despite the destruction they've wrought upon southern Lebanon, though with their cash handouts they seem to have people flocking to them.

Lebanon: "Beirut" was never a strong government, especially after the civil war of the 1980 and 90s, has achieved a mixed result. On the one hand, it appears to be greater control of its entire territory sending troops to patrol southern Lebanon and the UN/international community is looking to it as the central address. On the other, Hezbollah appears to have enhanced its political position by 'forcing' Lebanon to accept its armed presence (as of now, Beirut seems unwilling (more unable) to disarm the Hezbollah militia), Sinoria changed his tune regarding an initial disgust with Hezbollah's actions at the beginning of the hostilities to attacking Israel for its response and demanding the (partial) fulfillment of some of the Hezbollah agenda (e.g. the Sheeba Farms).

Syria and Iran: They seem to be the real winners. Their support, which continues, of Hezbollah has allowed them to enhance their regional and international standing (though not necessarily in a positive way) with little cost to their regime. Syria continues to host terrorists including the Hamas political leadership (Halad Mashal), seems to have prevented the new UNIFIL from being stationed along its border with Lebanon -- in an effort to prevent the rearming of Hezbollah -- and is presenting itself as a leading victor of the war. Iran played its cards (nearly) perfectly. It was able to distract the world from its nuclear buildup, enhanced its sphere of influence and advanced its Shiite perspective within Lebanon, and make the US look silly.

II The International Community

(a) the UN & Kofi Annan- The Security Council showed its true colors with how it resolved the conflict. Kofi Annan bullied the Security Council and by extension the world, that all that was required was an immediate ceasefire and the rest will work itself out (some time) later. He got his way. Resolution 1701 stopped the flighting, but has failed to end the conflict or address the "root causes". Two weeks later, all the pieces still not in place, so he's now in the region trying to finesse the sides to implement the entire resolution.

• The idea of a buffer zone seems to be accepted by most. However, there's no enforcement mechanism ("mandate") for UNIFIL.
• Lebanon isn't in a position to disarm the Hezbollah militia. Yet "Section VII" giving the UN forces the authority to use necessary force was omitted from the Resolution (mostly at the request of the Arab/Islamic bloc). Nobody wants to accept the responsibility to remove the military threat of Hezbollah. The lack of clarity of the mandate also delayed the troops commitments which in turn has delayed Israel from ending its blockade and removing all its troops from Lebanon.
• No real response was given the Syrian threat that it refuses to have UNIFIL troops along its border with Lebanon. They should have been censured and informed, since rearming Hezbollah is verboten, UNIFIL troops will be stationed along the border to ensure that doesn't happen.
• While 1701 is in many ways predicated upon UNSC 1559, the central positions -- i.e. the immediate disarming of nongovernmental militias be disarmed and the removal of foreign government influences -- has been glossed over and no penalties assessed (other than a weakened central Beirut government).

Much of the blame for the war, IMHO, is the result of six years of general neglect -- since Israel unilaterally withdrew from Lebanon -- and two years of failing to fulfill UNSC 1559.

(b) Europe - Despite being the victims of terrorism -- Spain, the UK, France and to a certain extent Holland and some of the Scandinavian countries -- their great concern/demand was that Israel respond with "proportional force" (whatever that means). Part of their issue (problem), I suspect, is the combination of a large and significant Islamic &/or Arab population within their borders and their largely digesting colonial history with a little anti-Semitism thrown in for good measure. While they're undoubtedly aware of the Iranian connection with Hezbollah, they failed to call Iran's bluff and demand (a) they cease and desist their support of terrorist organizations (including also Hamas in the Palestinian territories), (b) the end of the Iranian uranium enrichment program and (c) they (and the rest of the Arab/Islamic world) formally and actually recognize the right for Israel to exist. Instead, refuse to act decisively against either terrorism (and the incursion by Hezbollah across the "blue line") or the Iranian nuclear threat. Nor were they diligent in ensuring the full implementation of UNSC 1559.

[4 Sept 06: A number of EU countries have proclaimed that they will refuse landing rights for US munitions bound for Israel. What's the message here? It's clearly not supportive of either Israel or America.]

(c) the Arab/Islamic world - The most interesting 'situation' occurs with the Arab world. What started off as an opportunity to diminish the influence of Shiite Islam (read Iran) -- Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan at the forefront -- and thus an explicit condemning of Hezbollah, quickly turn 'neutral' and finally pro-Arab (and a tacit approval of Hezbollah) or more precisely, anti-Israel (the great unifying force of the region). I guess it didn't help that sympathy demonstrations occurred in their countries, though the authoritarian nature of the countries would suggest some degree of complicity with the demonstrators, and the Israeli bombing of civilian areas. That said, the countries could have worked behind the scenes to deal a better blow to Islamic (Shiite) terrorism. Oh well.

(d) the US - Last but not least are the Americans. As commendable as George W Bush's principled stand against terrorism and pro-Israel was, it was a strategic error. A further blow to the image of a strong and principled America.

• Bush overplayed his hand by not calling for a cease-fire earlier; one that would punished Hezbollah for their aggression while helping Israel create a safer border region.
• Better use of diplomacy was required to (i) clearly demonstrate Iran & serious role in arming Hezbollah, (ii) keep the world's eye upon Iran's nuclear program including ensuring Europe remained 'on board', (iii) separate Syria from Iran, (iv) keep the Arab countries behind neutralizing Hezbollah and (v) crafting a stronger UNSC resolution -- a clearly robust UNIFIL/multinational force, a censure of Hezbollah and its sponsors.

Three weeks later, 5 Sept, the Israeli soldiers remain captive, the Israeli blockade of Lebanon (air, land and sea) remains in place, the UNFIL forces have yet to be confirmed or be in place. The dust may have started to settle, however, the chips are still flying.
[written between 22 Aug and 5 Sept 2006]

BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION

… and not “the” response. Rather, it’s just another response — a voice — which I hope will create the conditions to pause and reflect on the current “reality.”

This blog is a long delayed fulfillment of a commitment I made immediately following the sudden and untimely death of my father, of blessed memory. For a period before his death he would always be telling me how well I wrote and how I should write articles and letters to the editor … I mostly chalked it up to parental pride. While this blog is in many ways a tribute to him and the example of principled living he gave me, it’s mostly for me, to put my thoughts to “paper” (or at least a screen). I trust it will live up to the build up and the principals of my father, of blessed memory.

The blog will address my existential struggle with living in a modern world — one without any set of universally accepted rules of conduct and behavior. How does someone create and then maintain an identity — ethnic/national, religious, sexual/gender, general? How can I come to terms with a need to think through issues when all I see around me are people plowing through without any true plan in mind? Where knee-jerk and instantaneous gratification trumps consideration for the greater good and critical thought? Where ‘blissful ignorance’ trumps angstful intelligence?

Since live in Israel, I expect that many entries will deal with what’s going on (or not) here relative to the outside Jewish and non-Jewish world with particular regard to Jewish identity, periodic “battles” and policy making. Since I grew up in North America, issues I confront from my readings from the media there will also be ‘food for thought.’

While I believe “objectivity” and “truth” are Platonic ideals rather than actual in the world, I do hope to be fair in my arguments. I aspire to be an equal opportunity offender; to cause people to think and rethink their positions based on the facts (or at least what’s known). After all, I view myself as a Marxist — a Groucho Marxist — in fulfillment of his quip, “I’d never join a club that would have me as a member.” While I certainly have my strongly held opinions and biases, I do hope to hold them in check, or at least disclose them up front.

One last introductory comment and ‘warning.’ I’m very sensitive to the use of (specific) words and, by extension, I’m prone to punning (a genetic trait from my father, of blessed memory).

The title of my blog should, therefore, be seen as a pun.

Thanks for reading.